We *really* need a development model change !

[Jeremy White]

>
>
>I don't think we should maintain a Windows make hierarchy, at least
>not manually. If we have to ship Windows makefiles they should be
>generated from the Wine makefiles (or both types of makefile generated
>from some other source file). Asking people to keep two hierarchies in
>sync won't work.
>

I'm relatively neutral on the tests vs. dlls issue, and so I'm willing 
to defer
to your judgement.  

However, I think it's critical that this process somehow be set up to be
trivial for use by a Windows geek.  And requiring the Cygwin
tool chain on Windows defeats the whole purpose.  For example,
I here at home have nothing but a totally brain dead Win98 partition.
No compilers, nothing.  (Okay, Diablo II, but that's it).

For me, at a minimum, I need to have a precompiled winetest.exe.

Ideally, we would have a 'winetest.zip' such that all I would
have to do is install Perl, and then I'd have a nice set of
sample test scripts I could run/modify/tweak to my hearts
satisfaction.  If I had a C compiler, I could also compile
the C tests.

Hmm.  What if I had a 'make export-tests' that created
a template 'winetest.zip' file.  Then I've just got to
get a Windows winetest.exe file built and repackage
the 'winetest.zip' file.  

So, if we had *one* Windows machine with a full Cygwin/CVS/gmake
toolchain, it could periodically build new 'winetest.zip'
files and publish them as a separate download at winehq.com.

What do you think?  If I extended your patch to add an export-tests
target, would this be useful?

Jer